Patrick Anderson <[email protected]> wrote .. > Henry Litwhiler wrote: > > what we would be doing, in effect, would be creating what is already there. > > Well, the difference I am proposing is that the Users and the Owners > are the *exact* same set. > > > > The only difference would be the people running it > > By "running it" do you mean the Workers or the Owners? > > > > so it would still come down to users having to > > trust the server operators enough to surrender over their data. > > But what if groups of collective users were the actual Owners of those servers? > > They could hire skilled Workers if they like, but would not relinquish > control except for the amount the must give-up to be able to share > between themselves. > > The difference between this idea and the self-hosting idea is the > ability to pool resources. > > After we discover how to do this, we can also tackle bigger problems > all along the chain, such as becoming truly Free as in Freedom ISP and > cell-phone services and even the most important production of all = > agriculture. > > > > We need to give users the tools to perform social networking functions - > > not just supply them with another service. > > I'm talking about the Users supplying *themselves* with the service > (with respect to Ownership). They could also choose to be the Workers > as well, but more often would hire skilled workers to accomplish what > they do not know how to do. > > Those hired Workers could not wrest control from the Users, since any > attempt to do so would cause them to be fired.
While there may be value in what you're describing, I believe it's beyond the scope of the decentralized social networking software called GNU Social.
